On Feb 17, 2009, at 0:17, Stuart Sierra wrote:
As I understand it, every Var has a name, which is a symbol, but the
name is an inherent property of the Var and cannot be changed. You
Unless you create a var using with-local-vars, right?
Konrad.
On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
David Sletten sent me this erratum:
At the beginning of section 2.4 we have The symbol user/foo refers to
a var which is bound to the value 10. Under the next subsection
Bindings we have Vars are bound to names, but there are other
I'm still not *entirely* clear about the mappings from symbols and
namespaces to Vars. I think I sort of understand how it works in practical
terms, but this is a confusing area and getting the terminology nailed down
would be a big help.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Chouser
On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Chouser wrote:
I think that the strict usage is consistent with Clojure's
binding macro,
which binds a name to a new variable.
Are you sure? It seems to me the most natural mapping from the CL
concepts to Clojure is:
CL name - Clojure symbol, name, or
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM, David Sletten da...@bosatsu.net wrote:
; Clojure. We can access the reference itself via var.
(def pung 8)
(def foo pung) ; i.e., (deref (var pung)) or @#'pung
(def bar (var pung))
; binding changes value of pung--apparently not the variable
itself, thus
David Sletten sent me this erratum:
At the beginning of section 2.4 we have The symbol user/foo refers to
a var which is bound to the value 10. Under the next subsection
Bindings we have Vars are bound to names, but there are other kinds
of bindings as well. The Common Lisp standard
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Stuart Halloway
stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote:
David Sletten sent me this erratum:
At the beginning of section 2.4 we have The symbol user/foo refers to
a var which is bound to the value 10. Under the next subsection
Bindings we have Vars are bound to
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Chouser chou...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if it's more correct, but it might be less confusing to
say The symbol user/foo is bound to a var which has a root value of
10.
Eh, well, I'm not sure about that first part. I don't know if the
symbol is bound to
On Feb 16, 3:34 pm, Stuart Halloway stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote:
Should I be using two different terms, or is the notion of binding
overloaded?
I think it's overloaded. In Common Lisp, symbols are bound to
values. Clojure's Vars are closer to CL symbols than Clojure symbols
are to CL
